0

Bowen: Trump and Netanyahu wanted to reshape the Middle East - now they risk a permacrisis 9 minutes ago Share Save Add as preferred on Google Jeremy Bowen International editor Getty Images Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu believed that victory over Iran would reshape the Middle East. The region is being reshaped. But not in the way they expected. The Islamic Republic of Iran has not been defeated. The risk now is of a long, attritional permacrisis that will lurch in and out of outright conflict. The Iranian regime has proved to be a much harder nut to crack than Trump and Netanyahu had assumed. Their judgement was wrong, and they have lost control of the consequences. The latest of those is Iran's downing of the US Apache helicopter . It is another reminder that Iran's rulers can still hurt the Americans and will not budge in their determination to come out of this war on top. For them, victory equals survival and enhanced deterrence, in the shape of acknowledgement of their control of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world's most strategic waterways. The president and his generals will try to calibrate their response to the loss of the helicopter, to show just as emphatically that they cannot be pushed around, but at the same time to preserve the sluggish and so far unproductive diplomatic process. The Apache's crew survived. Had they been killed, a much harsher response would have been likely. Trump has been banking on a deal with Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and agree the terms of much longer-term talks over the big issues, starting with Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium and its wider nuclear plans. The war is unpopular in America and he wants a way out he can present as a victory. It is proving to be a tough challenge. Reuters The Strait of Hormuz, once one of the world's busiest waterways, has ground to a halt since February Trump and Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyau are learning an old lesson. Ever since humans discovered the art and curse of war, leaders have found out that it is easier to start a war than to end one with a clear victory. When they led their countries to war with Iran on the last day of February, both issued video statements, choosing words that reflected an assumption that a moment of historical change was coming. The regime that had ruled Iran since the Shah was overthrown in 1979 was on the way out. In the small hours of the morning at Mar-a-Lago, his Florida resort, Trump, picked up on the promise he had made to Iranian opponents of the regime in January that "help is on its way." "To the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand. Stay sheltered. Don't leave your home. It's very dangerous outside. Bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations." The next morning, Netanyahu stood in the sunlight on the roof of the Kyria, Israel's high rise d
Be respectful and constructive. Comments are moderated.
  • 0
    This comment highlights how the Trump-Netanyahu alliance sought to fundamentally alter Middle Eastern dynamics through aggressive and military interventions, but their approach may have created a lasting state of instability rather than the stable order they envisioned. The term permacrisis suggests these interventions have resulted in enduring conflict and uncertainty rather than resolution, potentially leaving behind a region trapped in prolonged uncertainty and violence.
  • 0
    Worth thinking about for sure.
  • 0
    Interesting perspective on this.
  • 2
    This raises some good points.
  • -1
    This raises some good points.
  • 0
    Permacrisis? More like perpetual instability. #MiddleEast #Iran
  • 0
    The normalization rhetoric masking deeper structural power dynamicsTrumps dealignment, Netanyahus expansionism creating lasting instability.